monart Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 18 hours ago, EC said: I provided a lot of links of how they go about their life destruction. Essentially every tactic listed is or has been used against myself. They have essentially destroyed everything about my life, bankrupted me, destroyed property, harass me in many ways, sabotage my work in every manner possible, hacked everything electronic, made it impossible for me to get a new job or improve my situation in any manner, left me living in my vehicle (which has been repeatedly sabotaged in many ways), make me look "crazy" trying to describe it. And they do everything in ways that are hard to prove, that are easily deniable if taken piecemeal. I need legal protection against this evil group and a place where I can stay safely and restart my destroyed life. Do you know who, specifically, they are? And, why they are they persecuting you, specifically? If you can't get police protection, can you "disappear" and assume a new identity? Do need financial help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monart Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 17 hours ago, EC said: What I need since this evil group has destroyed everything and completely (as I'm typing this I'm getting out of context emojis, which is one of the things the hacking part of this evil group does to gaslight and harass me, and am screenshotting them for proof, which they can make disappear as they have with many things) is to be put into the FBI protection where they provide a new identity and protect my life while the criminals involved are caught and brought to justice. I tried contacting them and never got a reply, same with the national press. The literature and links I've provided suggests that it is the government behind this but remember everything electronic is hacked and some of the information could be phoney to stop me from pursuing the governments protection. I also can't bring myself to believe that the government of the United States has become this corrupt that it engages in destroying the lives of American citizens like this to the point where I have nothing left, nobody to turn to that will fully believe me, and no resources left (screenshot of a completely out of context blinking emoji as I typed that), and absolutely no way to improve the situation now. (another out of context blinking emoji that makes no sense even remotely to be there). I need the protection of the FBI and the "witness " (in scare quotes because I'm the victim of crime and not just a witness) protection program to protect my life and provide me with safe shelter as they find whoever the leaders are behind all of this and have them brought to justice before this attempted murder of myself by a million pin pricks leaves me dead or they do something to actually murder me and falsely make it look "natural" or a "suicide ". Since you can't get police protection, have you tried going off-line, moving elsewhere, and trading by cash-and-barter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 1 minute ago, monart said: Do you know who, specifically, they are? And, why they are they persecuting you, specifically? If you can't get police protection, can you "disappear" and assume a new identity? Do need financial help? While all the resources state that it is the government (I just took a screenshot of a placed by the hackers looking up exasperated emoji as I typed this, which switched to a "thinking" emoji and then a smile and then a wink as I'm describing it in parentheses) I believe it is a large criminal group that is attempting an overthrow of the government to control the lives of others, essentially some sort of evil democratic/communist/fascist/religious/collectivist/altuist dictatorship that has silently taken over the country. I've explained in detail that they are doing this to silence my knowledge of world changing physics that has been non-contradictorally combined with Objectivism/reality along with knowledge of what is happening at Skinwalker Ranch, UAP's in general and the explanation of the technology behind it and how to quickly create it along with AGI (same physics principles) and technology that I attempted to share with the world and earn the profit for my ideas and technology that is properly deserved as my own creation. At the beginning of this accelerated destruction when I was recruited by the Ranch the Army psy-op unit tried recruiting me also via the Ranch until they discovered that I was 44 at the time and had never been in the military and therefore couldn't take me on. Their is a very large possibility that they are behind all of this given the wide-spread hacking and scale and things that happened to me that requires government level resources such as constantly messing with GPS units, making every light turn yellow as I approach, organization of lower level government workers to harass in various ways (eye roll emoji by the evil hackers as a I typed that) and the list goes on and on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monart Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 11 hours ago, tadmjones said: I’m perplexed with the notion that self describes subjective experience a part from any description of mental products or operations of cognition, ie the ontological basis of the ‘first person’ perspective of experience. As per Rand , and Stephen , consciousness is the act of perceiving that which exists. Would an irreducible subjectiveness be non perceivable and render it without identity and therefore non existent? Rand's chapter, "Concepts of Consciousness", in her ITOE may help with reducing the perplexity. Is the "self" an abstraction from all that which characterizes a human person, including the mind, senses, feelings, choices, actions, the whole mind-body organism -- and not an actual separate existent? Or is the "self" a real emergent property in the growth of a person's consciousness? Or both and more? What is actually being sacrificed in Christian/theistic self-sacrifice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boydstun Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 (edited) 1 hour ago, monart said: Rand's chapter, "Concepts of Consciousness", in her ITOE may help with reducing the perplexity. Is the "self" an abstraction from all that which characterizes a human person, including the mind, senses, feelings, choices, actions, the whole mind-body organism -- and not an actual separate existent? Or is the "self" a real emergent property in the growth of a person's consciousness? . . . Rand's sets the self in her first presentation of her mature philosophy thusly: "Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists" (emphases added). This talk of one possessing consciousness is just in the vernacular that the reader can readily get the meaning of sticking simply with common usage. Before this passage in the speech, Rand has been talking already of men living by the mind and of sacrifice and self-esteem. Additionally, this whole speech is set against the immediately preceding scene in which the young government man Tony dies in the arms of Rearden, and they have spoken of the absoluteness of that bullet wound and Rand has illustrated the absoluteness of life and death of a person, mind and body. Self can be an emergent property looking across animal phyla. Encephalization of a nervous system, such as in a snail, need not entail existence of a self, even though the organism has a (fixed) behavioral value hierarchy. Damasio has found neurological quarters and interconnections for different levels of the human self (The Feeling of What Happens). Much is known about the development of the human brain in ontogeny, and experts might tell us when self-consciousness is added to primary consciousness. However, none of those emergences are about emergence of consciousness or consciouness-related self from neurological process, and I don't know if emergence would be the right relationship between neurological processes we possess and those selves. To your first option, we could say that self used to include all those things would be very handwaving, but that it is true enough, and Rand assents, that human self is the whole mind-body organism. I don't think your following OR, taken as exclusive would be right. I leave open for now, at my stage of information, whether the relation of consciousness and consciousness-related self stand to their underlying neural process in a relation of emergence, and if they do so stand, I don't see that as in conflict with your first option. Rand's talk of consciousness is never a sort of reified abstraction, but part of some animal biology. Edited March 26 by Boydstun monart 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 6 hours ago, monart said: Since you can't get police protection, have you tried going off-line, moving elsewhere, and trading by cash-and-barter? Dangerous, and essentially impossible in this day and age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 (edited) 8 hours ago, monart said: Since you can't get police protection, have you tried going off-line, moving elsewhere, and trading by cash-and-barter? I need protection from the FBI and now. I need to be put into the witness protection program while they figure out who is behind all of this. Edit: (When I typed the first sentence I got a thumbs down emoji from the evil hackers that I forgot to screenshot, and while adding this I got a laughing emoji and the upside down emoji face they seem to love for whatever out-of-context reasons that have nothing to do whatsoever with the situation I'm describing that I did screenshot now.) I should leave my full name date of birth and new phone number (that was immediately hacked after my old hacked phone was slowly sabotaged) here along with a current picture of myself and if I don't post for more than 2 days it should be assumed that I was murdered and all of you should go to the press and law enforcement as witnesses to my murder. Edited March 26 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Publicize the findings? Perhaps that would lessen any personal threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy Truth Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 13 hours ago, Boydstun said: Self can be an emergent property looking across animal phyla. Encephalization of a nervous system, such as in a snail, need not entail existence of a self, even though the organism has a (fixed) behavioral value hierarchy. Damasio has found neurological quarters and interconnections for different levels of the human self (The Feeling of What Happens). Much is known about the development of the human brain in ontogeny, and experts might tell us when self-consciousness is added to primary consciousness. However, none of those emergences are about emergence of consciousness or consciouness-related self from neurological process, and I don't know if emergence would be the right relationship between neurological processes we possess and those selves. Why is the term emergent property used here? The reason I ask is why not use "cause and effect"? Of course cause and effect would create a contradiction in the sense that consciousness is determined by this "emergence". Implying that consciousness has a cause, a determinant. I could go on and on, as in that usage, could: emergence be a justification for the big bang theory? That the universe emerged due to xyz? Not caused by, but emerged. It seems to me that emergence is a substitute for cause and effect when wanting to avoid certain contradictions. Once one talks about consciousness evolving from evolution, there's no way to avoid determinism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boydstun Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 3 hours ago, Easy Truth said: Why is the term emergent property used here? The reason I ask is why not use "cause and effect"? Of course cause and effect would create a contradiction in the sense that consciousness is determined by this "emergence". Implying that consciousness has a cause, a determinant. I could go on and on, as in that usage, could: emergence be a justification for the big bang theory? That the universe emerged due to xyz? Not caused by, but emerged. It seems to me that emergence is a substitute for cause and effect when wanting to avoid certain contradictions. Once one talks about consciousness evolving from evolution, there's no way to avoid determinism. I used "emergent" because I was reponding to Monart who had used "emergent." It seems sensible enough to sometimes use that rather than "caused," as when saying that the fluid state of matter emerged from a collection of certain molecules in a certain situation of temperature and pressure. Saying that "air is caused by the molecules composing it" is weird. And "air and its lack of resistance to shearing stress is caused by the molecules composing air and their collisions with each other" is also a weird way of talking. Shearing stresses are not something applicable to a molecule so far as I know. It is something that emerges at a macro level such as in our bones (hopefully with good resistance to shearing stresses) or in a breath of air. Additionally, causal relations in the story of how I came about are immediate and dynamical in my individual ontogeny in which evolution has provided the engineering-type structures in which such organized developmental processes can proceed. (Not only the background evolutionarily yielded structure is required, of course, but also a continuing sameness [within tolerances] of the environment in which the type of organism can survive.) So for thinking about causation and emergences of processes in the individual organism, it seems most important to be focused on individual development, not preceding evolution, while keeping evolution as important background of the present dynamics arena in which this is causing that and/or this is emerging from that. For the determinism worth having in a debate over free will vs. determinism, the determinism has to be a pre-determinism. To which the question "how far back is such and such in the present predetermined?" is sensible, and answers get more ridiculous the farther back the predeterminism is asserted, due to the circumstance that in the real physical, natural world there are a myriad of independent causal streams intersecting each other, continually resetting "initial" conditions and boundary conditions. All of that applies as well to emergences as it does to causation so far as I can see. Also, in stating Rand's mildly circular definition of the Law of Causality (that is, What is the Law of Causality, in applying identity to action?) using the phrase "caused and determined" in her definition (in "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made"), one should, I suggest, not take the "determined" to mean necessarily determinism, but a broader concept determinate. More like: "caused and delivered as determinate." That way both the results of the mind-independent course of nature and the results of free will engineering things can be brought under a Law of Causality. monart 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 11 hours ago, tadmjones said: Publicize the findings? Perhaps that would lessen any personal threat. I never thought doing something so important for myself and the advanced of mankind would lead to something like this. The people in the world are more evil than in today's times than anybody could have predicted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monart Posted March 27 Author Report Share Posted March 27 On 3/24/2024 at 1:53 PM, DavidOdden said: For the Christian, God is the highest value and all is to be sacrificed for his sake. Self is to be be sacrificed only when commanded by a higher value – God. Yes, as Bishop Barron says in the video, God is summum bonum, the ultimate good, to be served by serving others. The Bishop also says God is love, and to love is, quoting Aquinas, "to will the good of the other". Christian love is altruistic, unselfish love, thus is self-sacrificial. The end of this "love" is as depicted in their images of Jesus suffering and death on the cross, even if they also celebrate the myth of Jesus' resurrection. What is the essential Christianity: the crucifixion or the resurrection, or both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monart Posted March 27 Author Report Share Posted March 27 21 hours ago, Boydstun said: To your first option, we could say that self used to include all those things would be very handwaving, but that it is true enough, and Rand assents, that human self is the whole mind-body organism. I don't think your following OR, taken as exclusive would be right. I leave open for now, at my stage of information, whether the relation of consciousness and consciousness-related self stand to their underlying neural process in a relation of emergence, and if they do so stand, I don't see that as in conflict with your first option. Rand's talk of consciousness is never a sort of reified abstraction, but part of some animal biology. Without reifying the abstracted "self", and acknowledging the current unknowns about the evolutionary or neurological emergence of self-consciousness, one can observe extrospectively the emergence of the self in a child's growth from infancy to adolescence and beyond. And, one can also observe introspectively, the "emergence" or growth of one's own, continually maturing, increasingly distinctive self, as one engages productively with the world in a noble, purposeful way. Boydstun 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 28 minutes ago, monart said: What is the essential Christianity: the crucifixion or the resurrection, or both? I think the essential in most religions could be characterized as a faith in a transcendental aspect of reality. A faith in the possibility of overcoming the seeming paradoxes in the gross physical environment of life on earth. The life and death of Christ, the perceptual aspects of a human being and the strive to offer an explanation or meaning for how non material aspects , ie 'love' or 'will' , can or do affect one's 'lived experience'. Why be 'good', what are the results of 'being good' , whence the good ? monart 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monart Posted March 27 Author Report Share Posted March 27 16 hours ago, EC said: Dangerous, and essentially impossible in this day and age. How would it be dangerous? Yes, it would be rough living, inconvenient and isolated, living a shrugging life, but would it be better than living under your present targeted persecution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 Just now, monart said: How would it be dangerous? Yes, it would be rough living, inconvenient and isolated, living a shrugging life, but would it be better than living under your present targeted persecution? I want a normal life in a proper society as myself. Not living like a caveman or in an evil society that attacks random individuals for no reason. (Screenshot of an upside down emoji and now a sideways face with its tongue out from insane lunatics that are hacking me.) Notice, that they aren't doing this to the people that made it, but only those like myself struggling to make it. I have zero interest in hiding from society but being the most important part of it as myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 19 minutes ago, monart said: How would it be dangerous? Yes, it would be rough living, inconvenient and isolated, living a shrugging life, but would it be better than living under your present targeted persecution? And to be more specific I have spent a lifetime becoming the ideal man, I'm not going to hide from lunatics and criminals but have them all brought to justice and insure that this can never happen to another individual in at least the United States again at first and then the entire world. Evil only has power via the sanction one gives it, and I will offer it no sanction and will defeat it and those involved in this mass Evil, not hide from lunatic criminals. monart 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 11 hours ago, monart said: Without reifying the abstracted "self", The notion that is perplexing is the idea that the phenomenon of experience is the reified self as awareness at base. That bodily development, change and eventual decay are conditions to the locus of consciousness/awareness, and that that locus is the self at base. The basic notions of the Vedic philosophies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monart Posted March 28 Author Report Share Posted March 28 23 hours ago, tadmjones said: I think the essential in most religions could be characterized as a faith in a transcendental aspect of reality. A faith in the possibility of overcoming the seeming paradoxes in the gross physical environment of life on earth. The life and death of Christ, the perceptual aspects of a human being and the strive to offer an explanation or meaning for how non material aspects , ie 'love' or 'will' , can or do affect one's 'lived experience'. Why be 'good', what are the results of 'being good' , whence the good ? Ayn Rand regarded religion as "primitive philosophy", as pre/non-rational explanations or responses to the types of metaphysical-moral questions you include as essential to religion. We know Objectivism's answers to those and other questions. Not until Ayn Rand and Objectivism, do Christians have a rational alternative to Christianity. Not for all Christians, but for those who are inspired by the triumph of John Galt but not by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Since Christians are in the majority, many Objectivists come from Christian backgrounds, including those Christians, referenced in the initial post, who have yet to let go of their belief in a "transcendental" reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monart Posted March 28 Author Report Share Posted March 28 23 hours ago, EC said: And to be more specific I have spent a lifetime becoming the ideal man, I'm not going to hide from lunatics and criminals but have them all brought to justice and insure that this can never happen to another individual in at least the United States again at first and then the entire world. Evil only has power via the sanction one gives it, and I will offer it no sanction and will defeat it and those involved in this mass Evil, not hide from lunatic criminals. That's the spirit! And the power to your victory. Fight them when you can. Shield yourself when you can't fight them. Ignore them when they matter little. Stay steadfast to the realization of your ideal man. Be happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, monart said: Ayn Rand regarded religion as "primitive philosophy", as pre/non-rational explanations or responses to the types of metaphysical-moral questions you include as essential to religion. We know Objectivism's answers to those and other questions. Not until Ayn Rand and Objectivism, do Christians have a rational alternative to Christianity. Not for all Christians, but for those who are inspired by the triumph of John Galt but not by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Since Christians are in the majority, many Objectivists come from Christian backgrounds, including those Christians, referenced in the initial post, who have yet to let go of their belief in a "transcendental" reality. Rand's critique of religion as primitive philosophy is as reaction to the dogma produced by 'faith' , a product of irrationality or arbitrary statements and not comparable or even remotely related to 'proper' knowledge in Objectivism. The condemnation of the morality that would follow an ethos of sacrifice is her defense of the self as the highest value. Is the appeal ,(or prehension) for religionists or specifically Christians for O'ism, rooted in an escape or denial of 'transcendental' aspects of reality? Are Galt's triumphs not actually literary examples of transcending the 'mundane'? Regardless etymology , what is inspiration?(and then reconsider etymology) Edited March 28 by tadmjones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, monart said: That's the spirit! And the power to your victory. Fight them when you can. Shield yourself when you can't fight them. Ignore them when they matter little. Stay steadfast to the realization of your ideal man. Be happy. It still makes no sense why I keep reporting a mass amount of crimes occurring against myself everywhere constantly and nobody will do anything or help. And then I get ridiculous nonsense about hiding in the woods from criminals instead of the government doing its job. There is a mass group of evil criminals stalking around Michigan and Ohio and other states that need to be imprisoned because if they are a threat to myself they are a threat to whole cities and states, and since it is so widespread a threat to the entire country and everyone living here. In fact, it's time to contact the FBI again because a huge group of criminal domestic terrorists roaming around harassing and destroying the lives' of random Americans like myself cannot be allowed. I don't understand why the government isn't rushing to stop this. This isn't just a threat and mass crimes against myself but is happening on a scale that is a threat to the entire nation. That's how wide spread this is happening. Nobody is even remotely safe with this crime happening on this scale everywhere I go. There is a huge group of criminals working together secretly threatening, harassing, and destroying the lives of everyday normal law-abiding and highly moral Americans like myself and this needs to be stopped now. Edited March 28 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 (edited) Reported this clear threat to national security to the FBI. Will report this ongoing mass terrorism event to every federal agency capable of stopping it and protecting myself and all other individuals in this country from this unprecedented threat until they act. Something occurring of this magnitude, over such a long period of time, and across such a wide region requires a military level response. Edited March 28 by EC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monart Posted March 29 Author Report Share Posted March 29 On 3/27/2024 at 8:22 PM, tadmjones said: The notion that is perplexing is the idea that the phenomenon of experience is the reified self as awareness at base. That bodily development, change and eventual decay are conditions to the locus of consciousness/awareness, and that that locus is the self at base. The basic notions of the Vedic philosophies. The way I understand "self": Consciousness is consciousness of existence. Self-consciousness is consciousness of one's existence as a self that is conscious of existence. "Self" is an axiomatic concept, not as fundamental as "existence" and "consciousness", that integrates all the characteristics of a living, conscious entity. So the self, for humans, is at once a concept and a concrete being. The concrete self "conditions" the abstract self in that it's the concrete self that the abstract self refers to and is drawn from. Since human consciousness is the rational mind, the self is essentially the mind, but subsuming all the characteristics of the whole organismic mindful self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boydstun Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 (edited) On 3/27/2024 at 11:03 AM, EC said: . . . Evil only has power via the sanction one gives it . . . . This is incorrect and a very dangerous idea many have taken away from reading Rand. (A related incorrect take-away, which Rand later, correctly, denounced and clarified, is the idea that evil is impotent.) Evil is not always dependent on a sanction, and when it is, sanction from most anyone will do. Sanction from the (forum-shopped) witch doctor is common. Navalny did not sanction the evil of Putin, and he was brutalized and murdered by Putin all the same. Realistically, sanction from the victim is generally not a worthy sanction to the evil doer. To the evil doer, the sanction of the victim is generally as irrelevant as the sanction, were such possible, of a rat or insect. (Aside: Stalin fooled people into the "sanction" of not realizing that he was the reason they were forced onto a train to Siberia. They wrote him letters thinking that if he knew what was happening he would intervene.) Ayn Rand introduced the idea of the sanction of the victim and the dependence of evil on it in a situation in which evil was an ongoing parasitism on the victim. I'd leave validity of the idea to that sort of situation, nothing broader. One bad idea some readers take away from Atlas Shrugged is that they and their philosophical comrades are the Atlases holding up the world as in the book (kind of an iffy metaphor of the book, really, because of our modern conception of gravity) and that everyone else is significantly a parasite on them. No, our philosophical circle is not in that role. There are other real people who are in that role in this the real world. Edited March 29 by Boydstun necrovore, Jon Letendre and monart 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.